Happy Chappy

Scarborough front and camera at the ready. I've considered brightening this a bit more but don'twant to loose white detail. Some dodging on face and a bit of burning on white coat. Shot from the side as he chatted on his mobile.

Morning Paul,
Now I know you don't like to much photoshopping ;) but I've brightened the inside of the shop (just to see what else he's selling) by using the eyedroppers in "Exposures" and a layer maks to remove the effect from at defferent strengths from everywhere else.
Take care
Martin

Morning Paul,

Now I know you don't like to much photoshopping but I've brightened the inside of the shop (just to see what else he's selling) by using the eyedroppers in "Exposures" and a layer maks to remove the effect from at defferent strengths from everywhere else.

It's a nice enough shot but I don't get an awful lot out of it because it feels like he's too much in his bubble. Right now, he's on the phone and, as usual with mobile phones, that conversation is his whole world; the fairly tight crop here, just showing his upper body in his window, does nothing to dispute that. The shot needs something to contrast with what he's doing: he's happy but his customers are grumpy because he's ignoring them; he's happy but everyone else is grumpy because it's raining; he's happy because of his phone call and his customers are happy because they have ice-cream or because it's nice and sunny.
Street photography requires a lot of nerve and I don't have it. The classic shots, as I'm sure you know, are and were mostly taken with normal to wideish-angle lenses, in close, although the subject is often still not aware of the camera. This shot is the most timid approach possible: shot with a long lens and of a subject on his phone who's so unaware of what's going on around him that you could probably get his face full-frame with a 50mm lens without him noticing. This [link=http://shop.nouvellesimages.com/fr/toiles-photographie-noir-et-blanc/123-la-meute-1969-robert-doisneau-3661928114438.html]seldom works[/link] because there's so much distance between the viewer and the subject, both physically and metaphorically. (Indeed, I'd argue that the Doisneau works precisely because of the distance, as the woman appears to be in danger but we're powerless to help, even by shouting a warning.)
Be brave!
Dave.

It's a nice enough shot but I don't get an awful lot out of it because it feels like he's too much in his bubble. Right now, he's on the phone and, as usual with mobile phones, that conversation is his whole world; the fairly tight crop here, just showing his upper body in his window, does nothing to dispute that. The shot needs something to contrast with what he's doing: he's happy but his customers are grumpy because he's ignoring them; he's happy but everyone else is grumpy because it's raining; he's happy because of his phone call and his customers are happy because they have ice-cream or because it's nice and sunny.

Street photography requires a lot of nerve and I don't have it. The classic shots, as I'm sure you know, are and were mostly taken with normal to wideish-angle lenses, in close, although the subject is often still not aware of the camera. This shot is the most timid approach possible: shot with a long lens and of a subject on his phone who's so unaware of what's going on around him that you could probably get his face full-frame with a 50mm lens without him noticing. This seldom works because there's so much distance between the viewer and the subject, both physically and metaphorically. (Indeed, I'd argue that the Doisneau works precisely because of the distance, as the woman appears to be in danger but we're powerless to help, even by shouting a warning.)

Like your mod - Martin - it does improve things. I'm not against 'photoshopping' at all, but think some try to run before they walk and you obviously are well past that stage. This dodging works. I think a beginner should master the histogram, brightness/contrast (curves) and sharpening. Then try some dodging and burning. That is what we did in the old wet darkrooms - exposure, contrast, burn and dodge.
When the photographer is then comfortable with the basic controls to achieve a good image, then comes the trickery for which Photoshop, and other programs, are so good. I think that all beginners should know what a good technical image looks like before going too deep then they know when things go wrong.
Just me though.
Paul

Like your mod - Martin - it does improve things. I'm not against 'photoshopping' at all, but think some try to run before they walk and you obviously are well past that stage. This dodging works. I think a beginner should master the histogram, brightness/contrast (curves) and sharpening. Then try some dodging and burning. That is what we did in the old wet darkrooms - exposure, contrast, burn and dodge.

When the photographer is then comfortable with the basic controls to achieve a good image, then comes the trickery for which Photoshop, and other programs, are so good. I think that all beginners should know what a good technical image looks like before going too deep then they know when things go wrong.

I like the pose in this one Paul.
Theres a halo around his head where some of your work is visible, - if you zoom in when youre using the burn and dodge tools you can be more accurate; the toning down of highlights has been applied outside the shop, so it may look better if the brightness is restored in that area.
Ive loaded a mod to address the halo, and adjusted the exterior of the shop to show white where white should be.
Regards
Willie

I like the pose in this one Paul.

Theres a halo around his head where some of your work is visible, - if you zoom in when youre using the burn and dodge tools you can be more accurate; the toning down of highlights has been applied outside the shop, so it may look better if the brightness is restored in that area.

Ive loaded a mod to address the halo, and adjusted the exterior of the shop to show white where white should be.

I don't actually see that it matters if you are close or distant to your subject - it is what is contained in the final presented image frame that matters. I also shoot clandestine with a 10/20 Sigma from very close indeed, carrying the camera round my neck and framing by guesswork. Being unseen and un-noticed gives a different image totally to one where the subjects are aware.
However, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Paul

I don't actually see that it matters if you are close or distant to your subject - it is what is contained in the final presented image frame that matters. I also shoot clandestine with a 10/20 Sigma from very close indeed, carrying the camera round my neck and framing by guesswork. Being unseen and un-noticed gives a different image totally to one where the subjects are aware.

[i]paulbroad wrote:[/i][quote]I don't actually see that it matters if you are close or distant to your subject - it is what is contained in the final presented image frame that matters.[/quote]
Optically, it makes very little difference. Shooting with a 50mm lens at a quarter of the distance, along the same axis and pressing the shutter at the same time would have given essentially the same photo. (Being closer would have given a slightly different perspective but that wouldn't make much difference, here.)
I think the point is that shooting at a greater distance rather detaches you from the subject. It feels more like something observed than something participated in and it's compounded for the viewer because we just have the photo and not the memories of the scene.
Dave.

paulbroad wrote:Quote:I don't actually see that it matters if you are close or distant to your subject - it is what is contained in the final presented image frame that matters.

Optically, it makes very little difference. Shooting with a 50mm lens at a quarter of the distance, along the same axis and pressing the shutter at the same time would have given essentially the same photo. (Being closer would have given a slightly different perspective but that wouldn't make much difference, here.)

I think the point is that shooting at a greater distance rather detaches you from the subject. It feels more like something observed than something participated in and it's compounded for the viewer because we just have the photo and not the memories of the scene.

Hello Paul,
I had a look the MODs.. I would like to keep the left side of the image, but gave a little crop, because it says what he does. The red part on the right, I'm not so sure, so I cropped it off. I spotted a bit CA,( my endless battle againist noise and CA on my own photos:D).
Opened it on camera raw and correct it a bit CA. I 'm struggling to correct it on PS.
Added on 50% screen layer.Do you think the the white detail has been lost or not?
And a little tidy up job...oh, after I uploaded, I found the left side of the frame was straight but the right side, I didn't see it. So I opened it again, and did -2 lens distortion correction. Should be about -2 or -3, I'm not sure...I think that's all. Mainly it's wheather the screen layer works or not, the others are all irrelevant.;)
jas.

Hello Paul,
I had a look the MODs.. I would like to keep the left side of the image, but gave a little crop, because it says what he does. The red part on the right, I'm not so sure, so I cropped it off. I spotted a bit CA,( my endless battle againist noise and CA on my own photos).
Opened it on camera raw and correct it a bit CA. I 'm struggling to correct it on PS.
Added on 50% screen layer.Do you think the the white detail has been lost or not?
And a little tidy up job...oh, after I uploaded, I found the left side of the frame was straight but the right side, I didn't see it. So I opened it again, and did -2 lens distortion correction. Should be about -2 or -3, I'm not sure...I think that's all. Mainly it's wheather the screen layer works or not, the others are all irrelevant.
jas.